Lawgiver's page

Only the first 37 volumes were printed for the American release. The last American release was in 1988. I’ve been waiting a long time (almost 20 years) for anything ‘new’ to come out. Recent internet searches have finally revealed a bonanza for me and other Prescott fans. Here’s the salient points, for those who didn’t already know.

1) “Alan Burt Akers”, the name under which the books were printed, was one of many pseudonyms used by H. Kenneth Bulmer, a noted U.K. fiction author.
2) Bulmer died in 2005 at age 84.
3) Bulmer actually had 15 additional Prescott volumes published in Europe.
4) The first 8 of these European printings were e-books only
5) The last 7 were in German only.
6) Mushroom e-books has finalized agreement with Bulmer’s estate (read family) to begin reprinting ALL of the Prescott novels in English (including the e-books and German-only editions) beginning around Jan 2008. They plan to print 3 per month for the first year (or attempting to complete the first 36-37 American volumes that year), then to begin putting out the final 15 volumes at one per month until they’re finished. This would begin the unseen volumes 38+ beginning in Jan 2009 and completing the set around March-April 2010.

For someone like me who always felt the stories halted in mid-stream (like a sneeze that wouldn’t happen) I’m tickled %@itless!

Anyone else excited over the news?

On the Expensive Habits thread someone (Searn, I believe) mentioned the possible usefulness of a calendar of events to help the DM keep track of things. In that post he mentioned character birthdays as a potential item of interest. This got me thinking. Characters can potentially die of old age (natural or induced). There are ways around this like Wishes, potions of youth, etc. If a character receives an anti-aging affect does that change his birthday?

Here’s a scenario: Gorbash, the fighter, is 29, just two days away from turning 30. He imbibes a potion that reduces his age 10 years. Is he now 19, and two days away from turning 20, or did he just turn 19 because of the potion and has an entire year before his age increases to 20, thus resetting his” birthday” to the day the potion was taken? The same idea, but in reverse, can be said for aging, like with (2e) Ghosts that age those who fail their save.

Got any ideas? It might not have any effect in anyone’s game, but I’m curious.

I ended up posting this erroneously in another area, so if you've read it already, this is the place to reply. Sorry.

I’m partly curious if 3x uses this concept or if it’s been phased completely out. Either way, though, I’m looking to get your opinions on whether I should use it or not. Since I’m just starting a brand new homebrew and haven’t had to invoke it yet, I can kill it before it becomes an issue.

According to old 2e rules, the adventures are supposed to be high profile They live a certain lifestyle that requires they flaunt themselves. Kind of like a “High Rollers” or even “Whales” in Las Vegas, they are supposed to make their wealth and success obvious.

To simulate this, the characters are required to cough up a “maintenance” expense equal to 100GP per level every month. Thus, a 5th level character (regardless of race or class) must spend 500GP every month for lifestyle “maintenance”. This provides for good rooms, good meals, horse stabling and care, basic (non-magical) equipment repair/replacement, guild dues, etc. Anything else the character spends is considered extra so bribes, tips, tithes, alms and the like are all paid for differently.

In a way this provides the characters excellent incentive to go out and do their thing; to do what it takes to get enough money to support their hedonistic ways. Characters failing to provide this monthly fee are generally considered failures as “adventurers” and players are recommended to “retire” that character out of play. This is not required, by the way, just recommended. I don’t really plan on enforcing that part. What I do like, though, is that pressure incentive to go and do.

Since I’m not running any real plots, just letting character history provide me with grist for the mill, this early pressure to take the odd jobs or do the strange work necessary to get the cash, I’m sure they’ll get involved with things that will churn things up really well. But….do you guys think this is a “good” thing. Have you ever used it or anything like it…would you consider using it if it were part of your game rules (RAW or house), and can you see any obvious flaws that I might be missing?

Take your best shots, please…no mercy…’cause I really wanna know if this is something I want to entangle myself in. I’ve never used it before, always preferring to “edit it out” for streamlining purposes, but since I’m bending back to a much older style for this setting, I’m willing to go with it if I can. Whadda ya think?

Ok, boys and girls…here’s one from the halls of yore. I’m partly curious if 3x uses this concept or if it’s been phased completely out. Either way, though, I’m looking to get your opinions on whether I should use it or not. Since I’m just starting a brand new homebrew and haven’t had to invoke it yet, I can kill it before it becomes an issue.

According to old 2e rules, the adventures are supposed to be high profile They live a certain lifestyle that requires they flaunt themselves. Kind of like a “High Rollers” or even “Whales” in Las Vegas, they are supposed to make their wealth and success obvious.

To simulate this, the characters are required to cough up a “maintenance” expense equal to 100GP per level every month. Thus, a 5th level character (regardless of race or class) must spend 500GP every month for lifestyle “maintenance”. This provides for good rooms, good meals, horse stabling and care, basic (non-magical) equipment repair/replacement, guild dues, etc. Anything else the character spends is considered extra so bribes, tips, tithes, alms and the like are all paid for differently.

In a way this provides the characters excellent incentive to go out and do their thing; to do what it takes to get enough money to support their hedonistic ways. Characters failing to provide this monthly fee are generally considered failures as “adventurers” and players are recommended to “retire” that character out of play. This is not required, by the way, just recommended. I don’t really plan on enforcing that part. What I do like, though, is that pressure incentive to go and do.

Since I’m not running any real plots, just letting character history provide me with grist for the mill, this early pressure to take the odd jobs or do the strange work necessary to get the cash, I’m sure they’ll get involved with things that will churn things up really well. But….do you guys think this is a “good” thing. Have you ever used it or anything like it…would you consider using it if it were part of your game rules (RAW or house), and can you see any obvious flaws that I might be missing?

Take your best shots, please…no mercy…’cause I really wanna know if this is something I want to entangle myself in. I’ve never used it before, always preferring to “edit it out” for streamlining purposes, but since I’m bending back to a much older style for this setting, I’m willing to go with it if I can. Whadda ya think?

I’m just starting a 2e homebrew that uses most of the older 2e rules (just post-1e) without all the fancy Player’s Options rules, etc. No Handbooks, no expansion stuff…you know, pretty basic. The immediate problem is that two key players, having played under me for at least the last ten years (having gotten so used to my variant of the more advanced rules) are already having issues with playing Rules As Written, which they’ve never had to do. They’re just not used to it and are having difficulties. I know this is a self-made problem but I thought it was time they got a real perspective on RAW games so they can begin running their own.

One of those key players is my wife, and she really hates RTFM (Reading the F!*^ing Manual)! As I mentioned in Daigle’s New Game Session Format thread, I’m planning on running a multi-DM game world where other people get a chunk of the world and are responsible for developing it independently of what I’m doing. When a party crosses out of one DM’s territory and into another, the person responsible for that territory puts his/her character away and picks up running the game and the former DM now picks up a character to fill the empty slot. It’s very free-form without a lot of complex plot lines, and such. (***Refer to my comments in Daigle’s thread for more detailed info, if you haven’t read it already***) My wife has had months to read the books and begin working up her territory. Now that I’ve actually started running the game, there’s a clock ticking. Eventually (no real plan right now) these characters are going to go into her area and she’ll be responsible for running the game. She hasn’t done squat as far as I can tell. If we were to continue playing what she’s used to, the way I’ve run it for so long, maybe she could wing it to a point, but now that I’ve gone back to RAW she’s going to be so lost it will be a crying shame.

No to sound callous, but my concerned here isn’t for her…she’s adaptable, yaddah, yaddah. I’m concerned here for the game. I don’t want the concept (the game) to die, and I don’t want to have to break down and go back to old habits and start running my usual way. I really think this is going to be fun and she definitely needs the experience with RAW gaming if for no other reason than it will help her with her DM’s abilities. I know it did for me.

Do any of you have experience motivating a recalcitrant spouse?

What do I do? How do I motivate her? How do I kick her in the butt and get her to RTFM and do the work? I’m just lost here…sad commentary for a 50 year old man who’s been gaming longer than a lot of the readers here have been alive….*sigh*

Any suggestions would be appreciated…

It might be a bit late to post something for CSI: Vegas, but I have had a suspicion since early in this season: I think Grissom may be the Doll House Killer. My wife brought up another possibility: Sarah Sidle.

1) Grissom: He’s spent a lot of time “profiling” killers, trying to get into and understand the criminal mind and profilers are known to have problems identifying with criminals all too well. They frequently “retire” because they’ve begun emulating the folks they’re tracking all too much. Grissom lives alone, very isolated with plenty of time to create and carry out the kind of plan necessary. Perhaps he’s gone over the edge. There could be a split personality going on? Somehow I just find this possibility an all-too-fittingly ironic ending for the series. As neither William Peterson nor Jorja Fox will be returning for another season (if one even happens), it would make a truly twisted ending to find that the greatest CSI in television history has gone to the dark side.

2) Sidle: She admits to having met Grissom when she was still in college and attributes his influence to her decision to take up forensics. She came running to Vegas from San Francisco when he crooked his finger. She had one affair with him that didn’t last, and then went on a drinking binge that almost cost her her career. She’s got him back now and might just be trying to prove to him that she’s “good enough” for him by out-playing him in a deadly game. If she can commit the murders and not get caught, she’s his perfect soul-mate and can keep him. If not…well let’s just say that one of them dead and the other on death row is a strong possibility. One big clue recently involved the revelation that the doll house maker, the model train fanatic, had spent years fostering other kids and Sarah’s background included foster homes…lots of them. Also, there seems to be some possibility of child abuse/molestation involved: an issue that gets Sarah in an uproar faster than anything else. As pointed out very recently, foster children frequently change their names. Sarah’s current name does not have to be the one she was born with. As a note: Sarah and Grissom are the only two characters with alliterative names; Gil Grissom, Sarah Sidle. Could she have made even the pattern of her name to mimic him? Interesting thought…yes?

Give me some insight here. Could either of these two be possible? Probable? Arguments against, anyone? There’s not much left of the season and the next episode might clear it all up, so I need feedback fast. Thanks.

We’ve all heard that cry. Some, like me, have actually said it. I’ve even said, “It’s amazing how much smarter my parents get, the older I get.” We have a broad range of age groups on this message board. What kind of personal perspectives have changed as you have aged? What kinds of things did you used to disagree with your parents on, that you now find you agree with, or vice-versa? This can come in many forms: political, religious, moral/ethical, etc. You can include philosophy on child rearing, social activism, artistic tastes, food preferences…anything at all; just try to keep it in the perspective of you vs. your parents.

Personal example: I used to really chafe under my parent’s methods of discipline. I felt it a bit harsh, because I was comparing it to that of how my friends were treated by their parents. As time passed and I ended up with three kids of my own, I found out that I actually became a bit harsher a disciplinarian than my parents were! They ended up looking fairly lax and liberal (despite the otherwise conservative household atmosphere) in this area and I just couldn’t bring myself to be that patient, forgiving, tolerant and nonjudgmental. I have found myself echoing my father’s sentiments about how other parents are letting their kids get away with way too much and that many of “society’s ills” can be blamed on this unwillingness/inability of other parents to reign their kids in and teach them some manners and respect for others.

How about you?

In a non–game discussion with another player, a dark subject came up that I think you guys are the perfect foil to help me resolve. Cannibalism in the game.

I know that cannibalism is basically defined as consuming the flesh of one’s own kind. Thus, humans eating humans are cannibals. Dogs eating dogs are cannibals. If tiger eats man, we get offended, but the tiger is not truly a cannibal, just a man-eater. If man eats tiger some consider it a delicacy, others just shrug.

But, in a multi-racial game like ours, does racial sapience redefine the border of cannibalism? If a PC eats the flesh of another sapient creature (Human eating Elf or Dwarf eating Orc) does the sapience factor come into play and make this PC a cannibal? Does the definition ride more on whether one is a PC and the other NPC? If a PC eats a NPC is it ok, regardless of species? If a PC eats a PC, is it worse than PC to NPC?

Where is the borderline?

Give me some perspective, please.

This is kind of the reverse of the "What's in your CD player?" thread. In my checkered past, I spent some time (about 4 years) as a radio D.J. You would be surprised at how sick of a song one can get when you have to listen to it play a dizen times a day for three months!

Well, I've noticed that there are songs that I've come to detest, even whole bands, just because of the repetativeness. Here are some examples.

The Doors: Riders on the Storm. I don't think there's a DJ in the country who can keep themselves from playing this song when it's raining in their area, especially if there's some good lightning going. It's kind of like a reflex or something. The song just fits too well to let it pass...but I'm am so deathly sick of it. STOP THE MUSIC!

Wild Cherry: Play that Funky Music White Boy. When I was in military basic training this was literally the only piece of music I heard for the entire six week ordeal! STOP THE MUSIC!

The Rolling Stones: everything they've ever done. I detest them! STOP THE MUSIC!

What song or band would you prefer never to hear ever again, if you had the ability to STOP THE MUSIC!?

Ok, remember I do 2nd ed. (Yeah, I know y'all are tired of me reminding you). But, I was just thinking that people always talk about their party of adventurers in a way that says they're the only ones in the group. Oh, occasionally the DM will toss in an assisting NPC or two, but it's usually just the core characters.

Do any of you really use Henchmen and Followers for the characters much?
If not, why not?
If so, what are some of the more interesting outcomes or problems that resulted?

When I was just getting started gaming, there was this guy in town that had a major reputation as a DM. He was in the Air Force, (flight officer of some type) and ran one of the hardest-core, no-nonsense games around. He had a phenomenally high mortality rate among characters, he gave nobody any slack on rules, any table-talk was character talk unless specifically noted beforehand, etc. The thing is, instead of being such a hard-a$$ chasing people away, it drew them in droves. He had fend people off with a stuck; they were on waiting lists to get into his games. After having finally managed (after about 2 years) to get myself into one of his games (City State of the Mad Overlord) I finally got to see him in action personally, not just listen to others talk about it. The whole party got wiped out that same night and I never got back into his game before he got re-stationed out of country. But I decided that that kind of game (not necessarily that hard core); that kind of rep, was something I wanted to work towards. I wanted to be in demand, popular, all that crud. Well…years later, I guess I’ve gotten it because I do frequently have to limit the number of people at the table and I have several people who have told me they’d love a chance to get into the group.

Do any of you have an “idol” in the gaming arena that you emulate in some way; some personal sort of “hero” of the RPG set?

*A nod of respect to Captain Chris Campbell, “The Butcher of Westview”….*

Here’s an interesting one for you (provided it hasn’t already been done before).

The use of miniatures, maps, dungeon tiles and all that other stuff varies from game to game. Some people use them, some don’t. In 3X things like the battle map are much more essential to game play than in earlier editions, while those who have the time, money, skill, and inclination to build 3-D models of their dungeons are few indeed.

I was just wondering, how many people use props other than these typical things? Here are two examples:

1)Currently, a character I’m running in somebody else’s game was born into a noble family, but that family has some very barbaric roots (grandfather was knighted by the king for service on the field of battle). He’s learned how to fight really well because daddy wants him to keep up the old ways. But, since he was raised in a major city and exposed to all the education and “courtly” atmosphere attendant thereto, he also ended up a bit of a fop. He frequently walks around with a scented lace kerchief tucked into one cuff of his shirt. He uses it when expressing contempt for others, a sort of brow-beating gesture. The players always know when this character is being insulting (to them or an NPC) by the frequency with which he uses it and/or the way he waves it about (dismissively, usually, lol).

2)I have a plan for a short run adventure set on earth during the first Crusades, only in this version of the world magic worked. The Catholic Church commissioned a group to go to the Holy Land and bump off a heathen big-wig. The “cleric” in the game would be a Catholic priest sent to monitor the group's activities and to lend legitimacy to their actions. I went out and bought a cheap rosary for the player to keep with him during game sessions and use at times he felt appropriate. This adventure is still on the back burner (hasn’t happened yet), but I still have the rosary and still plan to have it used.

Does anyone else do this kind of stuff? If so, how prevalent is it with your group? Are the used by lots of people lots of the time, or only by one or two people and only sometimes?

The current game I’m playing in will end soon and I’ll be back behind the GM screen with a homebrew. The action will be using Advanced 2e, the old Greyhawk map (heavily altered) but none of the Greyhawk settings info. Everything is all ready to go except one thing; I want to create a system of tracking character “reputation” or "fame". It has nothing to do with alignment or any of that. The intent is to give me an idea of how far and wide knowledge of a character or party has spread. When a character or group enters a new area, I want to be able to do a die check against this “Reputation” score to see if they are recognized in any way, and how accurate (or erroneous) the information the locals has about them is.

I don’t want it to be math intensive in any way, nor involve any great deal of record keeping. I thought about using the Jordan’s d20 Wheel of Time module, which has a “Reputation”-like stat, but since I’m doing 2e and the mechanics come from 3e, I don’t want the hassle of doing any conversions. Besides, the way the stat is run in that module doesn’t really do what I want done, anyway. There would just be too much work tweaking it.

Do any of you already have something like this that works (again preferably 2e) or have suggestions of how it can be done? I’d appreciate some guidance. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Is it just imagination or are role-playing games disproportionately populated with white males? What is it about the game that seems less appealing to "minorities"? Is my gaming experience different from everybody else's? Look at your local game group, the people you meet with most regularly. How many of them are not white males between the ages of 15 and 40?

The games can be put into a few basic groups: Medieval Fantasy, Pre-American Revolution (American, European, Middle-Eastern, Oriental, etc.), American West, 20th Century Anywhere (divided into Pre- and Post-World War II), High-Tech Futuristic. There may be more, but we’ll stop there.

Role-playing games deal with a huge number of subjects. History, economics, religion, mythology, politics, meteorology, (the list goes on). One must have a fair understanding of all of these subjects (and more) to play well. Is there a subject or combination of subjects involved in the games that puts non-whites off?

Is it cultural? Environmental? Sex based? Money based? Excessive leisure time? Excessive curiosity? Is there a mass psychosis in white males for which RPGs provide subconscious therapy? Is there a mass psychosis among non-whites and/or non-males for which the games provide subconscious aversion? What do you see as the draw that makes white so much more involved in gaming that others?

It is said, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." What about rules for RPGs?

Are RPG’s outgrowing themselves? Have they become too complex? There is a fine line between playability and realism. The two are inversely proportional, like the balance between the air and water in a glass: the more of one, the less of the other. Do we need to get back to basics, back to simplicity?

When role playing games began, the rules were simple. A character was created and basic information was provided to help player visualization. Five minutes of work and off the characters went on an adventuring career, to do or die at the whim of fate. Many a dungeon was explored in those days. Many a foul, noisome denizen of the dark met its doom. Many brave adventurers found final resting places in the lightless, evil-infested labyrinths of ancient civilizations lost to the mists of time. Then, something happened. The Greater Gods -- those who hold immutable sway even over the deities worshipped in the worlds of the gaming multiverse -- started taking a more direct hand. They began asking questions like, "What is this character's motivation to travel with this group?", "Wouldn't a weapon's length effect who goes first in melee?", "Why can't a character take all those actions in one round?", etc. Suddenly, there came into being an advanced version of the game. The rules were overhauled. Some things were added. Some problems were cleared up. But a lot of other problems were created. Charts and graphs galore fluttered down about our heads.

More and more detail was added until game pace began to choke, heave, and stumble, as wads of rules became suffocating obstructions rather than streamlining aides. "Rules Lawyers" began arguing with refs and other players, saying, "Yes, my character can do that, because it says so right here ....", or "The rules don't address that problem, so I'll do what I want." Game play turned into a drudgery of wading through arguments and delays until, disgusted by the lack of progress, discouraged and frustrated by friction, players began packing the game away, fervently praying that next time would be better, provided they bothered with a next time.

Again the Greater Gods pondered the issue and acted. Again they missed the mark. A few more problems were fixed. Some streamlining was done. But ever more rules were added. More detail rained down from the heavens until -- now -- gamers are drowning in a flood of books, kits, and compendiums and other add-ons. It seems as though no attempt has been made to maintain playability. Instead, everything has become progressively more complex. And more expensive.

At one time, $25 would buy you the rule books and dice, some paper, and a couple of writing implements. This was all the hardware needed to play. A little time, imagination, and enthusiasm was supplied by the participants. The reward was a thoroughly entertaining evening of voyeuristic escapism. Today a player can spend $300, or more, without getting a fraction of the materials needed to play the game. Teaching new players has become a nightmare of confusing question and answer periods that would make a week long appearance on JEOPARDY! seem like calm in a hurricane. The game has turned away from being a hobby for the players, and into a money making machine for the writers, designers, and publishers. The sheer volume of material to absorb has turned a game session that used to take an evening into one that can now occupy the proverbial month of Sundays. By the time a character makes third or fourth level, the player can be too weary to continue. Gamers are getting trapped into hours of finagling to figure out which characters are adventuring together, supplying motivation, and wishing fervently that there were better ways.

Look at what's going on in the gaming world. Look at the number of role playing systems there are on the market. Would there be so many if the few that existed early on had really given the players what they wanted? Would the number continue to grow every year if any of the new systems were competently filling in the gaps left by the older ones? And just what is it that everybody is missing? What is the magical ingredient that will solve everyone's problem?

I always felt the missing ingredient was simplicty. We tend to use too much of what's available. We don't exorcise the imagination for which the game was built and rely too much on the crutches of game aides to help us along.

Your thoughts?

Recently, on other threads, we've discussed alterations of rules (house rules and such) that alter the game, as well as some detailed plot progressions. This brought to mind some of the alternate home-brew rules I use. I thought it might be fun to lay out some of our favorite outright rule changes that make our game unique.

Though the following is a bit long, it lays out my reasons for creating the rule, and the mechanics of the rule itself.

In AD&D (2nd ed.), higher level characters are penalized worse for encountering life-draining undead than lower level characters. Let's consider two fighters; Pat and Mike. Pat is a 5th level. Mike is 15th level. Pat has up to 35,000 experience points while Mike has over 2-million. Each encounters a vampire. The vampires bite, the characters miss their saves. Each loses two levels. They forget how to fight like before. They lose skills, memory, hit points, etc.

Look at it from a different angle. Characters losing levels are supposed to drop to an experience point amount half way between the minimum and maximum of the next lowest level! In the example above, vampires drain two life levels. Two levels to Pat means he drops to the mind-exp point for 3rd level, translating to about 26,000 exp gone, not to mention all the other penalties. Mike, on the other hand, would drop to the mid-exp point of 13th level, which equals loosely 625,000, in addition to other penalties. Each character can have the problem taken care of, to a degree, by seeing a high level cleric, but Restoration costs money, the amount of which is dependent upon the level of the character, not necessarily the priest casting the spell. This will be much higher for Mike.

This seems inequitable. Trained fighters don't suddenly forget skills. The system supposes the existence of magic but, let's wise up. Acting as though all that time never happened is ridiculous. Try running life draining undead this way. Multiply the undead's hit dice by 1,000, adding 100 for each "plus". This is the experience point loss for each level the undead drains! Example: An 8+3 HD vampire would drain the following experience points: HD=8x 1,000=8,000. "+s"=3x100=300. X2 levels=16,600 exp lost. The character won't forget anything. He doesn't lose hit points, skills, or anything else. His THAC0 doesn’t suffer. He is simply forbidden to progress until all those experience points are earned back. No special actions are required.

If Pat and Mike encounter a vampire run this way, things will be different. Pat would die quickly, only able to take two bites and still survive (albeit at 1st level), and he would need to be hugging the border to 6th very tightly (33,201+) before he could survive that second bite. Mike, on the other hand, must be bitten 15 times before he loses enough exp points to constitute a single “level loss”. Even if he loses that many, he won't forget anything.

It works well for us. Low level characters now have the fear of God instilled into them vs. life draining undead. Since I started using this method, I haven’t had any low-level parties trying to bag a wraith as soon as they get their first +1 weapon. And, the upper level characters now have less trouble with the pesky life-drainers, able to hire themselves out as “Ghost Buster” style crypt cleaners. Part of their contract can include the hiring party paying for the restoration.

Thoughts???

What is it about your selected RPG poison (specifically 2nd ed. vs. 3rd ed.) that draws you to it rather than to the other?

After having butted in so unceremoniously on so many threads and left the dung of my opinions scattered about to annoy and offend, I have a question. It’s not an official poll, so don’t look for any voting booths. If this topic has been covered too recently or too exhaustively, let me know and I’ll drop it; I’m just curious.

I’ve seen lots of references here to v3.0 & 3.5. I’ve played them both as player and DM…at least enough to know that I don’t like the d20 system. I guess I’m just too much of a stick in the mud, but I like my AD&D 2nd ed. just fine, thank you. I know I am among a dying breed. As we age, my generation is inevitably yielding the field to the younger set that never played 1st ed. D&D, let alone the original 2nd ed. (and all the follow-up material). I also recognize that v3.0/.5 have their merits and that they have as loyal an audience as any other RPG. Whether “Paranoia” or “Pendragon”, whether “Aftermath”, or “Merc”, whether “Tunnels and Trolls” or “Traveler” (yah, going back a bit there), every game has its fans. I just want to know why each of you prefers what you play most often.

If you could narrow it down to 2-3 specific points for brevity, I’d appreciate it, because I’m sure there will be a lot of posts and short posts makes for quicker reading.

Here are a couple examples, from my own reasons for preferring 2nd ed. over v3.0/.5.

1) 3rd edition went too much towards “comic-booking” the characters. There’s a feel to the mechanics that leave me feeling there’s not as much room for maneuvering that 2nd edition has. In 2nd ed. I don’t have to decide on a Prestige Class to grow up into and then have to begin selecting pre-requisite skills for it now. I can roll my own as I go and end up with a character whose skills are a history of his experiences in his world, not a declaration of the future he would like to have.

2) Reducing (or even removing) certain types of dice (d12, for example), removes a tool from my arsenal as a DM, forcing me to “improvise” with fewer bullets. Yeah, the d12 wasn’t used a lot, but it was used and I could come up with other uses than those pre-written into the system. This left me feeling as though the system were incomplete, washed out, thinly gilded base metal that would leave stains on my skins as soon as the veneer began to wear.

Thanks in advance for the input.